Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 12 (since 2011-12-18 16:03:53)


Showing comments 12 - 1

  • Zionism ate my religion, and I am taking it back
    • Marilyn, Zionism did not eat your religion; your religion ate Zionism. Israel is not a Zionist State; Israel, according to its Jewish inhabitants, the State of Israel and the organized Jewish community elsewhere, is "the Jewish State of Israel."

  • You can no more be a socialist Zionist than you can be a meat-eating vegan
    • So, according to Mr. Greenstein's words, Cuba was/is the only socialist state because "racism isn't a predominant feature." I don't know how he defines "predominant", but it is clear that the governing structure of Cuba is clearly non-Black and male dominated, as it was under Batista. Yes, Blacks and women have more rights now in Cuba than they did in the 1940-1950 era under Batista, but the same is true for the US, which is clearly not a socialist state. So, I still contend that Mr. Greenstein seems to have some "ideal' definition of socialism, which never has existed, similar to the ideal definition of Christianity upon the second coming of Christ.

    • The premise that one cannot be a socialist and a racist at the same time is flawed. In the real world socialist groups and states have been racist and misogynist, whether in the US, Soviet Union, China, Cuba, or where ever. Now, I suppose you can take the position (as this writer seems to do) that Trotskyists do today about Marxism, to wit, they say that it is unfair to complain about the repressive policies of Marxist states, such as the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc., because none of them was or is a Marxist state. A Marxist state, according to this view, will only come in the future. This is sort of like the Christian theory that all will be well on earth upon the second coming of Christ. In practice, socialism is no more free from bigotry than other forms of government. Mr. Greenstein lives in fantasy land.

  • The case for liberal anti-Zionism
    • I am going to guess that the "pro-Palestinian group" to which you refer is really pro-Israel, being a Jewish State and not a democratic secular State for all. Such groups are never for those who are for a single-state solution and will never give that as the reason. Their typical ploy is to claim that the person they oppose is objectionable for personal reasons, when this is a lie. I have seen this many times in the Los Angeles area. Alison Weir is a true champion of Palestinian rights, don't let "hidden Zionists" (some of whom even mask as anti-Zionists) fool you.

    • I have read Phil’s article and all of the above comments. Apparently, Phil and some of the commenters want the “big tent” approach by including “liberal Zionists” in the tent. I will not argue the point that there is no such thing as a liberal Zionist, even though I agree, because it was well presented in at least one post above. However, what I find curious is that neither Phil nor any of the commenters mentions an unambiguous peaceful advocate for genuine equality in all reapects for Palestinians who has been banned from Mondoweiss, along with anyone who has the temerity to express any of his views. I guess the big tent that could be interpreted to include an extreme Zionist such as Chuck Schumer is not broad enough to include Gilad Atzmon. Phil, even you may not yet recognize it, but you are tilting further to the right and this article is a good example of the drift. Hmm, will this comment be and remain posted?

  • New Israel Fund's Daniel Sokatch exposes the bankruptcy of liberal Zionism
    • Daniel Sokatch has a long history of calling himself "progressive" on Jewish issues, going back to his younger days in Los Angeles, while serving the interests of the most right wing Israeli interests and, serving them better than right wing advocates of Israel, because he appealed to mostly Christian progressives with his nuanced support for Israel's right wing policies. The only difference is that now many folks know who Sokatch is, while in the early days his disguise was much more effective.

  • New Israel Fund response to Ben Gurion harassment reinforces very system it claims to oppose
    • I know Daniel Sokatch from the "old days" ( around 2003-2006) when he was the head of the "Progressive" Jewish Alliance (now defunct) in Los Angeles, CA. He was a PEP (progressive except for Palestine) in those days and he obviously has not changed. In those days, he had a lot of progressives in Los Angeles thinking he was something he was not--he was very good at that. Fortunately, those who are progressive on the Palestinian issue have learned a lot since then. Hi, Daniel, as you will recall, you did not fool me then and you do not fool me now.

  • Roundtable on the Palestinian solidarity movement and Alison Weir
    • I had to curser through all of these past comments to see whether the point I am about to make has already been made and I do not think it has.
      So, Mondoweiss was just too, too busy to deal with the Weir issue before, but now it posts "roundtable" comments, one condemning Weir, one "gosh can't we all just get along", and one defending Weir; all without any comment by Mondoweiss.
      Next, I suggest that Mondoweiss publish a "roundtable" about whether Mondoweiss is really for Palestinian rights or just asserting an apparent position to further its true intent of supporting continued Jewish control of the land known as Israel? We could start out with Gilad Atzmon who would take a strong position about Mondoweiss' deceptive position, we could move on with that "progressive" Zionist of Israel Fund, Daniel Socatch who would take a "gosh can't we just all get along" position and end with JVP, Mondoweiss' combination Zionist/non Zionist friend who would strongly defend Mondoweiss. Of course, Mondoweiss itself could make no comment on this issue. Wouldn't this be as fair to Mondoweiss as the Weir "roundtable" was to her?

  • Renouncing my Israeli citizenship
    • What an interesting response.! Is this to say that "all Jews look alike?" I don't think so! Also, it is not a matter of giving Zionists satisfaction or not. It is a matter of what it means to be a humanist without hiding behind an ethnic cloak.

    • Yes, Lenny and others, it takes a true sense of justice and courage to do what you did. Now, consider the next step. Is it really just Israel and so called Zionists who support these supremacist and racist policies against "the others"? Or, is it the worldwide organized Jewish community itself? Not just AIPAC and its ilk, but virtually every Jewish religious and secular institution. I realize that folks like Mondoweiss, Jewish Voice For Peace and a very few other groups and individuals who identify as Jewish try to resist these policies, but another way of resisting (and I believe a more effective way) is to shed the Jewish identity as I and others have done; in other words---QUIT. As someone once said, "You have nothing to loose but your chains." No, I am not a Marxist, but I am a humanist who does not wear an ethnic cloak.

  • Settler colonialism -- and liberal Zionist denial
  • Exile and the Prophetic: Obama’s (and our) Jewish politics
    • I would like to see the so-called "Jewish vote" analyzed differently. J Street brags that 70% of US Jews voted for Obama, but the fact that 85% of US citizen Jews who live in Israel voted for Romney leads me to suspect the 70% claim. I would like to see the US vote broken down into two categories: 1. Those Jews who belong to a religious or any other Jewish organization (including so called liberal ones) and 2. Those persons who are usually identified as Jews because of heritage, but belong to no Jewish organization, religious or otherwise. I think you would find that a majority of those in group 1 voted for Romney, not Obama and those in group 2 voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Just a thought.

Showing comments 12 - 1